Hey Chung

Bill C wrote:
Add Scooter Libby to the list of fall guys who got tossed to the
wolves while the people actually calling the shots, and orchestrating
this stuff walk free. Watch 'em tie it up in appeals and then pardon
him on the way out the door.
He did a lot less than a ****load of those Clinton pardoned, so I'd
say it sucks, but that's how the game is played.

None Dare Call It Treason.

--
Lynn Wallace

Jesus loves Osama bin Laden

On Mar 6, 8:14 pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:

Admit it, Tom: she was right. Under Saddam, neither men nor women were
guaranteed much in the way of rights. It's an awfully mediocre equality
but equality nonetheless.



Dumbass -


It was better than that. Women were allowed to hold professional jobs.
They were doctors, lawyers.

In a fundamentalist Muslim society like Saudi Arabia, women aren't
allowed to drive a car.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

In article om,
"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote:

On Mar 6, 8:14 pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:

Admit it, Tom: she was right. Under Saddam, neither men nor women were
guaranteed much in the way of rights. It's an awfully mediocre equality
but equality nonetheless.

It was better than that. Women were allowed to hold professional jobs.
They were doctors, lawyers.

It goes much further than even that. The government of Iraq (after the '68 coup)
was far more secular than the governments of almost all the nations in the region. In
'70, the Iraqi Provisional Constitution was drafted. Iraqi women got equal rights
guaranteed in many areas, including the right to vote and to run for political office,
the right to attend school, and (one of the most important) the right to own property.
Iraqi women had the right to divorce and property settlement that goes with that.

The reasons for the government doing this was an attempt to create a population
that was more loyal to the state than tribal and sect affiliations.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

* Fred Fredburger a écrit
Tom Kunich wrote:
"gds" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 4, 8:41 pm, Nev Shea wrote:

Laura says there is "just one little bombing a day." She should know!

I accidently tuned into a "progressive" talk show today just in time
to hear a woman announce that under Saddam women had almost achieved
equality in Iraq but now that the Shiites and Sunnis are in power
they've lost everything.

Admit it, Tom: she was right. Under Saddam, neither men nor women
were guaranteed much in the way of rights. It's an awfully mediocre
equality but equality nonetheless.

BTW, you're not claiming that the Shiites are more strongly in favor
of women's rights than secular governments, are you?

Take it from Davey who actually has been to Iraq several times, for
all the horse**** negative publicity the place has had, it was still
the Shining Star of the Middle East.

Take a look at Saudi for instance:
http://azurservers.com:9080/mar-executioner.html
http://azurservers.com:9080/mar-saudi.html
[If you vatch the executioner video, note that the woman interviewer
seems to actually think it's funny!!]

Despite being Sunni, Saddam ran a strict non theocratic country. Part
of his problem was that the crazy god-mongers were always touting
their gods with false promises of the fast track to an audience with
allah or a ****fest with the 72 virgins to stir up the local yokels

But Saddam was one hell of a Man and he kept the lid on that bunch of
Vipers pretty good. Much better than Bush ever could dream of, and for
sure without killing 655,000 of them and making another 1,000,000 home
less

And provided you didn't start any revolutions, you could do whatever
the heck you liked

--
Le vent à Dos
Davey Crockett [No 4Q to reply]
The News CNN and SKY won't show you
http://azurservers.com:9080

On Mar 7, 12:11 am, Raptor wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 6, 4:31 am, "Bill C" wrote:

... I'm in total agreement on hanging Bush and Co. after the election, as
long as you don't hold responsible those who voted based on the cooked
intelligence. If your honest you've got to give Hillary and friends a
free pass on this one. They thought they took a responsible stand
based on solid information.

No freakin way.
Sure everyone assumed Saddam had WMD. But
anyone with half a brain cell could also see that the
'intelligence' had been and was being cooked, even
then, and it was clear to anyone with half a brain cell
that WMD was just the latest in a string of justifications
anyway. Many people were talking about this openly
and in public at the time. Hillary and Co. cast their
votes pro-war because it was the popular thing to
do. No free passes.

If you look at what they said during the debate over the AUMF, most
Democrats were careful to express support for nothing more than a
strong, unyielding stance against Saddam's Iraq.

But you're otherwise right. Anyone paying close enough attention could
see that the intel didn't back up the rhetoric, that the justifications
changed from day to day, and that there was a huge black hole under
"What happens next."

--
Lynn Wallace

Jesus loves Osama bin Laden- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Glad you know more about what's being provided in classified briefings
to Congress, and other people in Washington from here than they did.
I'd say that Hillary and folks made the safe choice based on what
they were seeing, Either they were supposed to have forseen the
biggest criminal abuse/misuse of intel since the Spanish American war
and bet that there was no threat, or vote the way they did. Are you
one of the clowns saying that the intel that Al-Q was dangerous was
wrong under Clinton when he did nothing, but suddenly was right under
Bush and he should've done something.
You are a clown, Just like Kunich, it's about ideology. We ignored
intel pointing to something happening leading to 9/11, the USS Cole,
the Khobar towers, the Beirut Marine barracks, and I could keep going
but none off that matters to you, even though there was serious
discussion of WMD.
It just as easily have gone the other way. They did nothing, and
Hussein handed one of those missing Soviet suitcase nukes (not myth)
to Al-Q and a US city disappeared.
Then you'd just have kept your mouth shut, or more likely,be
screaming that they SHOULD have taken action.
It really amazes me that I end up defending the politicians I like
least, other than Bush and Co., from the total nutjobs on the wacko
fringe of their own party.
I'd bet your a Kucinich supporter.
Bill C

On Mar 7, 8:06 am, "Bill C" wrote:
On Mar 7, 12:11 am, Raptor wrote:





wrote:
It really amazes me that I end up defending the politicians I like
least, other than Bush and Co., from the total nutjobs on the wacko
fringe of their own party.
I'd bet your a Kucinich supporter.
Bill C- Hide quoted text -

On Mar 7, 12:11 am, Raptor wrote:
Bill C wrote:
Add Scooter Libby to the list of fall guys who got tossed to the
wolves while the people actually calling the shots, and orchestrating
this stuff walk free. Watch 'em tie it up in appeals and then pardon
him on the way out the door.
He did a lot less than a ****load of those Clinton pardoned, so I'd
say it sucks, but that's how the game is played.

None Dare Call It Treason.

--
Lynn Wallace

Jesus loves Osama bin Laden

That's a very slippery thing to hang on anybody in the legal system.
This though, waddles and quacks just like that duck. Couldn't hang
their asses for that, but there sure as hell is plenty of it to try
and hang their asses on through special prosecuters in the next
administration. One of the real problems is that government clowns
have voted themselves such incredible protection from prosecution for
just about everything that it's ridiculous.
Bill C

On Mar 6, 11:08 pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Bill C wrote:
Obama's plan sounds like the Vietnam peace treaty, with the same
wortless guarantees we gave the S. Vietnamese. Love how this **** just
gets recycled and they expect different results.
Bill C

At a certain point, "Peace, with honor" is going to sound pretty good to
everyone. The left, which buried it's head in the sand when we went to
war, will succeed when the right buries it's head.

But don't blame the politicians. They're just doing what they need to
do to get re-elected.

To the people here. The same ones screaming about human rights and
genocide in Sudan, China, etc... won't make a peep over something much
worse because it's convenient for them. Situational ethics and moral
relativism are the bedrocks of the far left. That's why Gueverra and
Castro are heroes and great men, and Marcos and Pinochet are scum.
Bill C

"Raptor" wrote in message
...
wrote:

But you're otherwise right. Anyone paying close enough attention could see
that the intel didn't back up the rhetoric, that the justifications
changed from day to day, and that there was a huge black hole under "What
happens next."

And of course we could really rely on newspaper accounts of what the
intelligence community knew and was handing out to those with top level
security clearances who of course would be so very open about it.

"Davey Crockett" wrote in message
...

But Saddam was one hell of a Man and he kept the lid on that bunch of
Vipers pretty good. Much better than Bush ever could dream of, and for
sure without killing 655,000 of them and making another 1,000,000 home
less

And provided you didn't start any revolutions, you could do whatever
the heck you liked

Sure, you could drain the marshes and murder all the marsh arabs. You could
drop poison gas on the Kurds. And of course you could enter into an eight
year war with Iran and end up with a minimum of some 750,000 casualties.

Davey can read the Duelfer report himself and see what was happening after
that.